Next, Ann. hope you can find someone who has bad attitudes about black people for your next post, so we can all find someone to feel superior to and hate and show how enlightened WE are in our comments.

Then maybe someone with bad attitudes towards Mexicans. Lord knows we don't have enough places to talk about how much better we are than those bigots. How else can I go on without showing how much better I am as a person if we can't comment about much we just hate people who hate people?

After that, perhaps someone who is bigoted against atheists . . . I think that's Christians mostly, right . . . or maybe just Catholics.

Joe's attitude is the same as the Boy Scouts' attitude on the "freedom for the gays" issue. He still wants the old system of segregation from what he fears will harm his family.Can we learn to get along? I believe we can so long as the Gay groups avoid mob violence, and use the MLKjr tactics of peaceful protest.

Get this idiot off the stage. If his kids get involved with music, dance, drama, or any other aspect of the arts, they will probably be around very talented gay men who will teach them wonderful things.

I don't mean to sterotype gay men as only being in the arts. It is just a common place to cross paths with aspiring youngsters.

We (conservatives) need to get over the whole gay thing. I would trade gay marriage for local control of schools or smaller government anytime.

Did you know Norman Mailer, vanguard of the left, also hated gays? Women, too. And Betty Friedan wasn't all that fond of gays either.

"But the most telling comparison is with Mailer's near-contemporary Betty Friedan, who wrote sourly in 1963 that homosexuality was spreading across America like "a murky smog".

Like Friedan, Mailer thought there were more gay men around and he blamed it on a loss of faith in the "notion of one's self as a man". He complained bitterly about the "womanisation of America", revealing his pathological fear of a femininity he regarded as passive and threatening at the same time".

Other famous homophobic liberals:John Edwards, Joe Wilson, Pete Stark, and Eric Alterman" In an excerpt from his book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum recounts a 1998 encounter with John Edwards, who had hired him as a consultant for his first Senate campaign. "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?" Shrum recalls asking Edwards. "I'm not comfortable around those people," the future senator replied -- though both Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, have since said that the quote was taken out of context.

In October, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign invited Donnie McClurkin -- a notorious “ex-gay” singer and minister -- to participate in its Southern Gospel Tour event in South Carolina. McClurkin claims that homosexuality can be “cured” through prayer and that gay people are “trying to kill our children.” While Obama later claimed that he did not agree with McClurkin about gays, he had no problem giving the performer a platform to preach his bigotry, knowing that such views are widely held among the conservative Southern black voters whose support he needs to win the Democratic nomination.

Also in 2007, Joe Wilson, husband of former CIA agent Valerie Plame and hero to liberal bloggers, gratuitously attacked former Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman and California congressman David Dreier, both of whom have been the subject of gay rumors. “He's had three wives, he's a womanizer, he's done drugs,” Wilson characterized the right-wing smear campaign against him. “But then they realized they couldn’t use those because I've never actually denied them. I mean, I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women.” And in 2003, Pete Stark, a leading member of the liberal, antiwar faction of Democrats in Congress, repeatedly called one of his fellow congressmen a “little fruitcake” in a meeting on Capitol Hill......

The liberal journalist Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress think tank, is a particularly nasty example of the liberal homophobe. Two years ago he challenged gay, HIV-positive journalist Andrew Sullivan to prove a claim Sullivan had made about Alterman regarding military action in Afghanistan, offering to pay “$10,000 to the AIDS charity of Sullivan’s choice.” He mocked Sullivan, “who is HIV positive and likes to discuss this fact with reporters,” for his “remodeled bathroom in P-town.” Alterman regularly refers to Sullivan as “little Roy,” after Roy Cohn, the gay aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy who died of AIDS complications. Following Ann Coulter’s labeling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot” in 2007, Alterman said, “Look, the word 'faggot' ... is a word one hears in private conversation quite frequently; she just said it in public.” Makes one wonder what sort of company Alterman keeps.".

But let's keep talking about the plumber, 'cause only Rethuglicans get the two minutes of hate.

I'm generally inclined to argue with you, but to the extent that's true, I think it was a desparate attempt to rescue the election from the the inept campaign of John McCain that made him famous, but he's irrelevant now to any serious conservative. At least I hope so.

Why do I get the feeling that some of the people looking down their noses at JTP for what he said openly would find quietly some other reason to dismiss a prospective child-care provider for their children that they perceived in some way as "queer"?

Honestly, is this all we have to choose from now, hopenchange socialism or Joe the lunkhead-style idiot populism? Great! I'm sure this is exactly what Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Thomas Paine envisioned for our Republic! The sad thing is that as a nation we're so intellectually debased that it's automatically assumed that if you don't agree with and defend everyone on your "side" then it's assumed you're standing up for the other "side". If I call Joe the Fake Plumber an asshole, then everyone assumes that I'm a supporter of our Philosopher-King Obama.

"Whenever I hear someone say something like this I always want to meet these "friends". How can you call anyone a friend if you wouldn't want them near your children?"

I always think the same thing when I hear the lame "I have ____ friends".

I also want to know what kind of people would want to be around this trailer-hitch of an intellect's children? I feel sorry for the kids. Hopefully they'll grow up to be intelligent libertarian homosexuals and cause problems for everyone.

Why is it that whenever someone says something awful about gay people, it's always prefaced with an admission of having anonymous "homosexual friends"? Not that Joe has any gay friends, but even if he did, is this supposed to lend some sort of credibility to his bigotry? Please, there's no need to front load your hate speech with imaginary friends, just come right out and say it! At least it'd be more honest.

While it's good to see a lot of conservatives here wanting to distance themselves from JtP, let's remember, he was a featured speaker at CPAC this year, was promoted as the conservative everyman by many conservative media outlets during and after the campaign, and of course was sent to Israel as PJM's featured on-site journalist, who was there to give a conservative everyman's view of that part of the world. Liberals aren't the ones who promoted this guy, and while he may not be a conservative superstar, he is at the very least in somewhere in the lower to middle level of the conservative media food chain, and thus, a star.

Joe was a useful counterpoint last fall, back in Ohio. Then he became famous, and then an embarrassment. Time to take a page from the master, and throw him under the bus. (Trouble is, the Republican bus is up on blocks, but that's another story.)

bagoho : There are so many opinions that are culturally taboo now days. Are we more repressed than Puritans. I would guess they talked more freely than us.Since Rhode Island was founded by people kicked out of Massachusetts because they wanted religous freedom, I would say no, Puritans did not talk more freely than us.

My uncle always quoted Lincoln to me: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Too bad JtP's uncle did not teach him this lesson.

But I'm not really sure how Betty Friedan's comments from 1963 can be used to indict liberals today. First of all, people are less ignorant today. Second, conservative writing from the National Review of that era can be mined (as I recently read) for blacks=inferior statements. Would today's conservatives like to be tarred with the racist brush based on ignorant 50-year-old statements written by their predecessors?

Further, it is true that Obama hired a Grammy-award winning Gospel singer to appear as part of his Gospel tour. And it is true that the Grammy-award winner happens to be extremely conflicted about his sexual orientation. But does that mean we have to break his rice bowl? What is the culpability of the Grammy voters here? Are the Grammy voters homophobes? Or were they just looking for the best performances regardless of the background of the performers?

I don't think JtP's fear is based on "gays=pedophiles." I think that JtP fears that gays are looking for converts, and that the homosexuality is so seductive that his son will never be attracted enough to women to marry and reproduce.

Which says a lot about JtP. Personally, my sexuality is not that fluid. But maybe Joe's ready to take a walk on the wild side.

The point of my post was that being a Democrat means... blah blah blah.This is always your point. If you can't see that it's your personal version of the two-minutes' hate, then Orwell isn't making you any wiser.

Would today's conservatives like to be tarred with the racist brush based on ignorant 50-year-old statements written by their predecessors?

I believe that most of those statements that you are referring to were made by Democrats.

But...you are correct. Blaming an entire group of people for the statements made by others is just not right. Just like the liberals here are trying to make JTP a spokesperson for the Republicans or Conservatives and tar everyone with the same broad brush, when those statements are just his own thoughts.

fls, you're giving Edwards, Wilson, Stark, and Alterman a pass on their very recent comments.

And you forgive Mailer and Friedan just because time has passed, but old quotes about Buckley and others are trotted out all the time.

Why is that?Because there are no sins on the left.But you better toe the line, folks on the left, you're quite expendable. Heretics are soundly punished.

----------------@Lem:I haven't followed Palin much. What little I've read suggests a middle of the road type on economics and government interventionism. I could be wrong, mixing populism with popular.

-----------------"This is always your point....."Is it?The point of the Two Minutes of Hate is precisely its communal and official origin. The personal is forbidden.

But yes, I do decry socialists alot here. There just happens to be alot of socialism in the USA today.

I think it was in fact socialism that Orwell was writing about, but apparently you drew a different conclusion.

-------------"Half your examples are people I've never heard of."That's the point,isn't it?Ever wonder why not?No one will hear much about Obama gaffes or Biden gaffes, either, but we learned every one Bush or Quayle made.

The articles I posted from weren't conservative rags exactly; the Advocate, for example.

Why do I get the feeling that some of the people looking down their noses at JTP for what he said openly would find quietly some other reason to dismiss a prospective child-care provider for their children that they perceived in some way as "queer"?Ha. Indeed.

He's entitled to his opinion. I don't believe he has gay friends. If I had straight friends who said you are my friend but you can't be by my children because you are queer they wouldn't be my friend. I don't know, something about trust and making me feel like crap would not lend itself too well to the "friend" category.

Also, as a fag I have no interest in children. I want a big, muscley well endowed man baby. And none of my gay friends have a thing for kids either.

In the article they also asked if he was going to run for office. If God talks to him he will, otherwise no deal. Let's pray God doesn't talk to him.

I think you're right. I guess that's one of the drawbacks of being a gay person (or maybe a person in general) born in 1985, I don't have a strong grasp of a gay culture that a group such as NAMBLA could possibly evolve from; it's just not something us millennial gays are well-versed about. Good point, though.

former law student,I had considered that, and so maybe I should also admit that I don't know where the whole gays as recruiters trope came from either. Probably the whole "homosexuality is a choice" nonsense. I sort of wish I had been recruited, it certainly would have made those confusing, shameful, angsty adolescent years a bit more lively.

gaywrites said... I'm not quite sure where the whole "gays as pedophiles" trope came from, and I'm gay.Historically, from the strong connection between older gay men and adolescent boys - more properly known as pederasty, not true pedophilia.Societies were far more protective of the young females in families to remain suitable for marriage by preservation of virginity - so that bloodlines were maintained and female "property" was not despoiled..So many men in many societies turned to sweet young boys, where the "taboos" imposed were far less severe, less lethal, than luring in and having sex with 12-13 year old females outside marriage.We saw the pederasty model at work in many societies..the Greeks, Prussians, Arabs (still prevalent today), etc, etc.Remember that Gay Hero Oscar Wilde was not "persecuted" for the "love that dare not speak it's name" but instead was properly prosecuted for a series of sex acts he paid young boys aged 10-15 for. [Accurately named - Rent Boys]

In America, we see a far higher rate of pederasty, generally, in the gay ranks - than the straight.People can rail away at the "intolerant" Boy Scouts and the military, but then again, they avoided the 700 million paid out by the Catholic Church. And also avoided having their good names tarnished as the RC Church will be for some time for the folly of leaving young boys alone with gay priests in a position of authority.And, let's not forget the traditional meaning, given by cops, of the label "chickenhawk" - older gays cruising and hitting on likely "boy candy"..plucking up those tender little chickens...

The Left 'appropriated' that insult, much as they are now trying with 'teabaggers'.

I don't know if the higher risk of molestation by gays is inherent in their hardwiring....and I consider pederasty far less grave a sexual deviancy that actual child molestation of prepubescents...

And just so this isn't seen as a comment that seeks to demonize gays, but to accurately reflect reality ....It DOES appear that where societal vigilance against adult predation on adolescents wanes - rates of straight pederasty go up and approach the gay rates.

Examples include dysfunctional inner city culture (rampant 'use' of young black girls as useless and unvalued except as ho's by male adults). Or closed-in cults (polygamists,), where societal restrictions are replaced with "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" - typically to the older men with power in the cult that only follows its own laws and norms.Or instances of lax supervision or parental oversight of public school teachers, coaches, other employees who deal with part-time HS and Jr HS workers.

And note that it appears that in both gay and straight pederasty convictions - rates are far lower for parents that have loved and raised children than for childless adults. Would you do to another child or even the wild flirting 15-year old girl rebel what you would find absolutely destroying if someone did it to an underage person in your own family?

JTP is right to be wary. All parents should be. But not only of gays, and if he took the time to "vett" some gays he would see they are as safe to have around their kids as straights, and others made not a concern by learning more about the restrictions and supervision they operate in when in contact with kids.And PC forces should not be allowed to brand parents as "haters" when they reject some people as unsuitable to be around their kids.

"You only told that 18-year old black kid to stay away from your daughter because you-hate-blacks!"

"No, because the black kid uses drugs, is disrepectful, held back a grade, already was out of school for 6 months for time in juvie for burglary. Not good for my kid's development.."

"What kind of message do you think discriminating against the black kid sends."

"Perhaps clean up his act? But I judge that highly unlikely, given his attitude.."

Well well... this actually does cross a line for me. I don't mind people being against gay marriage, though I am for it, but this is getting into something more.

Having said that, I would like to remind people that this attitude seems to extend pretty well to any random man around children. I recall a man being warned to stop when he tried to take some pictures of his own child at a playground.

Its not just gay men, all men are pretty much suspected of being a child molester if they're within a few feet of a child.

I think this gay thing is a subset of this tendency. Doesn't make it better or excuse it but some perspective of other people's prejudices would be helpful while we all talk about what a horrible bastard he is.

Checking up on the cited "homophobic" liberals is taking me way too long, so I will stop with Fortney "Pete" Stark.

First, Pete is an unlikely homophobe because he has amassed a 100% gay rights voting record over at least the last twenty years.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=26736

In the chronicled incident, although the acknowledged master of sensitivity to political correctness, Tom DeLay, believed that Stark's use of "fruitcake" to describe Colorado conservative Scott McInnis reflected Stark's homophobia, I doubt this for two reasons:

1. McInnis is a married Roman Catholic.2. The context for fruitcake for people as old as I am is "fruitcake, nutty as." Fruitcake is thus the equivalent of nutcase or goofball. An anti-gay epithet from a septuagenarian would be queer, fairy, pansy, or faggot, or fruit without the cake.3. No other instance of Stark's alleged homophobia has been advanced.

Overlooked here is the widespread, even institutionalized, distrust of men around children irrespective of sexual orientation. From Dr. Helen:

Male Teachers Under ScrutinyNot that we will have to worry much longer--the pool of male teachers is dwindling--thanks in part, to scrutiny like this:

Negative comments and raised eyebrows also have affected aspiring male kindergarten teachers in recent years, said Pam Fleege, associate professor of early childhood education at the University of South Florida.

"It's very sad. Male students have come to me after they've been challenged by their own families and friends," Fleege said. "Some are accused of being pedophiles. But they mostly get a lot of, 'What are you going to say when a parent confronts you?'"

Confrontations with suspicious parents are rare, teachers say. That could be because parents who are uncomfortable with a man teaching their children often request a female teacher.

Those requests are honored every year by Carol Hughes, principal of Leila G. Davis Elementary in Clearwater. She leads the only Pinellas County or Hillsborough County public school with two male kindergarten teachers.

"I don't think JtP's fear is based on "gays=pedophiles." I think that JtP fears that gays are looking for converts, and that the homosexuality is so seductive that his son will never be attracted enough to women to marry and reproduce."

I think it's sort of hard to claim that gays aren't looking for "converts" when I've heard suggestions that young people are supposed to "explore" their sexuality. What does that mean other than "Try it to see if you like it?" And what about this supposed "confusion" people have about their sexuality? Might not a "confused" person go either way?

Is it really being "homophobic" to have a care that one's children not be "confused" and asked to deal with ideas they are not ready for?

To be fair, it's probably not *gay* culture that's promoting the "experiment with your sexuality" thing, but it's a fairly significant message being put out there and it is entirely contrary to any sort of traditional morality... even traditional morality that accepts that some people are born homosexual and that it's unfair to ask them not to live their orientation.

It might be unfair to associate this with homosexuality and the examples that come to my mind are "heterosexual" ones... such as my complaint, once, that the art show at a sci-fi con displayed a painting of nudes and bondange and then when it had been covered, overhearing an "earth mother" in a turquoise silk shirt and massive, pendulous, unconfined mammaries, complaining about the sort of people who worried about such natural things as nudity or sex.

Egad.

It's easy to dismiss someone with "homophobe" because then it's unnecessary to even consider if that person has any legitimate concern, even if misdirected.

There are all sorts of people I wouldn't necessarily have allowed around my children that I would not hesitate to be friends with or associate with and who I might well have a great deal of sympathy for. I'm an adult.

When did the measure for "hate" become defined by a willingness to give over your children?

We aint running around spreading the gay word. We have enough to deal with getting our own houses in order. We really really don't have time or care about your houses or recruiting or converting or whatever fucked up term some here think we are "trying to do". No outreach programs either, we promise. Really we don't. Nor do we have any interest in your fucking kids.

Well, well, well, this has turned into an interesting discussion, hasn't it.

First, Synova, I can only speak for my own experience. The only exploring of my sexuality I did was during my adolescence when I attempted to convince myself that I was NOT gay. So, for me personally, sexual exploration only confirmed something I already knew.

Second, and connected to that, for me, confusion did not come from not knowing whether I was straight, gay, bisexual or something else, the confusion came from being told by society that I was not supposed to be gay, when in fact, I was, and had no one around me that could enlighten me on why this was or when/if I would ever change etc. The only influence I had, sadly, was religion which told me I was being sinful and I should pray my way out of it. Trust me, it doesn't work.

I don't think it's homophobic to not want your children to be confused, but I think it is homophobic to assume that by associating with homosexual adults that your children are more likely to become gay, or understand their sexuality in a way that prevents them from ever possibly becoming straight. In my personal history, my sexuality was pretty much cemented by the time I was twelve. And by cemented I mean that I've never had an attraction to women, and the only attractions I have ever had were towards men. I had a gay barber as a kid. He never tried to recruit me, but my straight uncles were constantly asking me when I was getting a girlfriend...so if you want to talk about recruitment efforts, I'd say the gays are losing that battle.

I think there's quite a difference between "a willingness to give over your children" as if you're putting them in some dark alley with perverts, and letting gay people "anywhere near" your children as jtp said.

So there's that,

Cedarford, I am not a pederast or pedophile, nor am I a psychologist. I think it is beyond most people's understanding as to what link there may or may not be between sexuality and preying on children/adolescents.

I was under the impression (perhaps ignorantly) that things such as pedophilia and pederasty were more often than not independent of ones sexual orientation. I was of the mind that a desire to be sexually involved with children did not involve so much the actual sex of the children as it did something else. I'm not sure what that is, though I'd like to be enlightened. I'm not say that men that prey on boys are never gay, but I wonder if there are not straight people that molest male children?

Bottom line, I thought the desire came from the fact that it was a child, not because it was a child of a particular sex.

My daughter had a male teacher for K and he was an absolutely wonderful first-rate teacher, very much missed when he left after only one year to go back to school. What a huge loss. There was another male K teacher at the school as well, who was bilingual and also in great demand. (I think he's out of teaching now. Not sure, my kids aren't that age anymore and you do lose track).

Were there parents asking their kids not be assigned to these teachers? Maybe. It was their kid's loss, however, if that was the only reason they didn't want these teachers, because the teachers're male and they're scared of the male. But it's their decision, however foolish I think it is. As I've said before, you can't fix dumb.

gaywrites - I was under the impression (perhaps ignorantly) that things such as pedophilia and pederasty were more often than not independent of ones sexual orientation. I was of the mind that a desire to be sexually involved with children did not involve so much the actual sex of the children as it did something else. I'm not sure what that is, though I'd like to be enlightened. I'm not say that men that prey on boys are never gay, but I wonder if there are not straight people that molest male children?.

That is the general "politically correct" version that liberals try delivering to the public...but it is an "educational agenda" badly disrupted by the facts.

1. Sexual predators tend to stay with the gender they find desirable. Claims that who molesters go after has nothing to do with their sexual orientation are as ridiculous as feminist claims that since rape is all about power, rapists are equally as likely to rape old ugly women as young, attractive women of equal vulnerability.

2. Data shows no random distribution where a purely straight man or gay man attracted to kids goes after any kid of any gender in random distribution - but one gender, normally. The exceptions tend to be bisexuals.

4. Leaving aside unnatural conditions like long prison confinement when only one gender is available, military camps completely isolated from women - the pattern in serial rapists is they rape based on sexual orientation. Read any account of a serial rapist - note that victims are of a gender and type..Exceptions have been found to be bisexuals or the John Wayne Gacy type - who authorities found was a repressed homosexual with strong pederasty and sadistic tendencies. (All Gacy's prostitutes were 'rent boys', all his victims were 'rent boys' or young males aged 13-28 he had the opportunity and the inclination to rape, torture, kill..)

5. And again, practice of pederasty is a heck of a lot less harmful for society than true pedophilia on prepubescents. So I think we should be far more careful about talking about some 19 year old boinking an enthusiastic 16 year old as a pedophile no different than a 50 year old man raping a 3 year old girl...We get suckered by legal definitions that a 17-year old is a "child" no different than an 4-year old. When in reality, and in nature, until recently with the extended childhood society wants ..."teens" were in the breeding population.

[And plenty of eager, hormonally fueled teens do want "to do the dirty" - tens of milllions of them. What we do is impose rules so that more powerful adults aren't manipulating and sexually exploiting teens - bad for families, bad for stable marriages, bad for society if we allowed it..]Like it or not, a well-developed teen girl can look pretty hot on the beach...and same with the boy studs I occasionally catch my wife snatching peeks at..And 100 years ago, "jailbait" was legally married off. But now we want them to "work out their hormonal issues with people their age, or by 'delayed gratification"...and when we fail to enforce this structure..we end up with trailer park or inner city black ghetto pathologies that spring up in large part from young people having sex much older people or transient people of no part in their lives outside the sex act. On the other hand, stable relationships, even outside marriage, between people even when one or both is well under 18, do not seem to create the harm to society that criminalizing parties would generate.]

"...but I think it is homophobic to assume that by associating with homosexual adults that your children are more likely to become gay, or understand their sexuality in a way that prevents them from ever possibly becoming straight."

Well someone is certainly making the assumption because the quote and the article never said any such thing. The "OMG JtP is afraid of him or his kids catching the gay" is imputed meaning. It's *put* there by people making assumptions, and then argued over.

So are those making the assumption homophobic then?

The short version of the quote in the article is:

Joe doesn't oppose gay marriage at the State level but thinks the Feds should stay out of it.

Joe recognizes the inherent conflict between love and acceptance people and opposing sins.

Joe feels entitled to his opinion, knowing that other people have their own opinions and are "going to do their thing."

He expresses a very "live and let live" attitude with an understandable exemption in the case of his children.

My daughter's middle school has only a couple of male teachers. Her band teacher is a man.

But when she was going to have a male math tutor I sat in a meeting with five women who apologized to me and assured me he was very good. I was horrified. Not at him, but at them. I told them that I expected her to respond favorably to him *because* he was a man. They looked at me like I was speaking Martian. Sure enough, she thought he was fabulous. He wasn't there long. Maybe he got a full time job teaching. I don't know.

"He expresses a very "live and let live" attitude with an understandable exemption in the case of his children.

And that's hate these days?"

Would you make the same excuses for the douchebag if he said he wanted to keep his children away from blacks? I actually believe that that is his right, but I also believe in my right to criticize his decision and his prejudices.

"Would you make the same excuses for the douchebag if he said he wanted to keep his children away from blacks? I actually believe that that is his right, but I also believe in my right to criticize his decision and his prejudices."

Well, I'm gay and I would like it if more people kept their kids away from me. Like the whining, then screaming, children at the next table over yesterday. They're screaming. Take them outside and spank them.

It depends if being gay is *like* being black, or if being gay is a lifestyle... or if it's both.

The gay people here (with a couple obvious exceptions) seem like people I'd like my children to be around. The same with those who hang around Gay Patriot. And I'm led to believe by "authentic" gays that you're all self-hating and a severe minority besides.

I don't know the gay people JtP knows (and the construction of his statement could be taken as a specific "them" and not a general "them"). What sort of ideas does JtP think will be expressed around his kids? Do you know that it's the *person* JtP objects to and not ideas and attitudes?

I think it would be reprehensible to object to keeping kids away from black people or other minorities, but I'd be 100% on board with it if the black people in question were on the "all whites are racist" band-wagon. (This goes for whites on the "all whites are racist" bandwagon as well.)

IMO, people don't always know what they object to when they object and I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that an objection has basis in something other than unreasoning hate. Hate is the *easy* answer.

There are any number of "lifestyle" things I'd prefer to keep my children away from but that don't worry me otherwise. (At the moment I'm *really* wishing I could have kept my children away from vegetarians.)

Oh, and keep in mind...The Cuban Cigar, Peter, Palladian, JSF, Fen, Pogo, LOVED it when this idiot crawled out from under some slimy rock in Republicanland.

They all felt he represented the kind of real and common American everybody could relate to.

I find it amazing that the GOP hasn't just paid this fool whatever he wants and told him, that for the good of the party, to get the fuck off the stage.

Right now the GOP has the Plumber, Rush, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Bunning, Jindel, Hatch, Newt, Princess Palin and who knows comes next...front and center...and anybody who thinks that's good is out of their mind.

*Me, being a good American, supportive of our new President and happy to see things getting better every day...find it absolutely hilarious and hope they keep up the good work.

My religion says that homosexual behavior is a sin. It also says that my looking at a woman with lust in my heart is a sin. Sounds like my gay friends are sinners like me. They are welcome around my children.

"My religion says that homosexual behavior is a sin. It also says that my looking at a woman with lust in my heart is a sin. Sounds like my gay friends are sinners like me. They are welcome around my children."

Are we not supposed to notice the fact that you're equating behavior with lust instead of behavior with behavior and unacted upon lust with unacted upon lust?

Are your "swinger" friends welcome around your children? Are your friends who are proud of their heterosexual sin welcome around your children? "I see no reason to hide the fact that I act in porno movies, you hater!" Or my "earth mother" lady who thinks that pictures of nude ladies exposing their genitals and wearing dog collars is something only a prude would object to showing children... is she welcome in your home?

If that lustful thought you have is the same as having sex with the neighbor, why don't you do that then and let your kids know that we're all sinners together?

People should be honest. I don't think that homosexual *behavior* is any more sinful than heterosexual *behavior* except in the same ways that heterosexual behavior is immoral. And scripture is very strict about sexual morality. (And I do think that gays should be able to marry so the "morality" playing field is even.)